Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1073
In circumstantial-evidence cases, forensic and DNA evidence must actually corroborate the alleged crime: a conviction cannot survive where the most crucial scientific evidence, on its own terms, points away from rather than toward the prosecution's theory.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1074
A conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence requires every link in the chain, timeline, witness credibility, forensic matches, and motive, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt; gaps or suppressed evidence at any link entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, even in a serious case like a double murder.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8505
Courts will not quash a criminal case merely because the accused has a plausible alibi-type defence; unless that defence is conclusive and undisputed, the matter must be tested through the ordinary trial process.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8547
A private compromise between victim and accused cannot by itself secure quashing of a case involving serious, heinous allegations like attempted murder with a weapon: such matters must proceed to trial regardless of settlement.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8563
Railway Claims Tribunals cannot reject a bona fide passenger's death claim based on speculative inferences when there is no direct evidence of an alternative cause of death; the compensation scheme under the Railways Act is to be interpreted generously in favour of victims' families.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case · 2026:DHC:8559
In matrimonial offences, courts can and do quash criminal proceedings once a genuine compromise is verified directly with the complainant, sparing both parties a prolonged and pointless trial.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8541
A co-accused's bail does not automatically extend to another accused where their actual roles in the offence differ materially; delay caused by one's own defence counsel cannot later be used as a ground for bail.
Execution Petition · 2026:DHC:8567
An arbitral award must be adequately stamped before a court can enforce it; courts give only a limited window to cure such defects, after which the award becomes legally unusable until the deficiency is fixed.
Arbitration Petition · 2026:DHC:8555
A genuine settlement reached through mediation renders a pending arbitration-related court petition moot, allowing parties to close out litigation quickly once they resolve their dispute privately.
9257 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreLegal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).
The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.
Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.
Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.
Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.
Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.
S.N. Gupta was shot dead at his doorstep by a man posing as a courier delivery person, in what investigation revealed was a contract killing arranged over a business and chit-fund money dispute with Shiv Charan Bansal and his son Sachin Bansal. The conspiracy allegedly involved several people playing distinct roles, arranging the hitman, supplying the unlicensed pistol, and providing the getaway car, corroborated by call records, recovered weapons matching forensic reports, and the accused's own absconding after the murder. The trial court discharged several accused (Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann, Rajbir Singh) and charged others (Shailendra Singh, Sachin Bansal) only under the lesser Arms Act offence rather than for murder/conspiracy; the High Court affirmed these discharges on revision, prompting appeals by the State and the complainant.
The Supreme Court held that at the charge-framing stage only a prima facie case need be shown, and found the lower courts had wrongly discharged Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Shailendra Singh despite strong circumstantial material, including the mysteriously missing call records of Shiv Charan Bansal, destroyed chit-fund records, the recovery of the murder weapon from Shailendra Singh's office matched by forensic and ballistic reports, and each accused's conduct of absconding after the crime. It directed the trial court to frame murder-conspiracy charges against these three accused and proceed with trial on a fixed timeline, while affirming the discharge of Rajbir Singh (an advocate) for want of sufficient material connecting him to the crime itself. The appeals were allowed in part.
In conspiracy cases built on circumstantial evidence, factors like suspicious absconding after a crime, selectively missing records, and forensic links to recovered weapons can be enough to send an accused to trial, but each accused's involvement must still be assessed individually, and presence or association alone is not sufficient to frame charges.
